Home > HCAS > HCAS_PUBS > HCAS_JOURNALS > TQR Home > TQR > Vol. 31 > No. 11 (2026)
Abstract
Multi-author autoethnography has become a popular methodological approach in academic development research. While it offers unique strengths in diversifying voices, preserving lived experiences, and promoting innovative practices, limited attention has been paid to the co-author relationships that shape and constitute the research process. This article argues that stronger methodological engagement is needed to review, define, and reflect on co-author relationships. Attention should be paid to intimacy, hierarchy, positionality, and power relations between authors, and how these dynamics may influence collaboration, reflexivity, and knowledge production. Drawing on academic development research, this article identifies personal, collegial, and educational relationships as the three most common forms of co-author relationships and explores their characteristics, opportunities, and potential tensions. It proposes the Co-Author Relational Reflection Framework as a practical guide to help researchers define, disclose, analyse, and revisit co-author relationships throughout the research process. Furthermore, the article highlights therapeutic positive autoethnography as a potential approach for building, sustaining, and developing supportive co-author relationships within collaborative qualitative inquiry.
Keywords
autoethnography, co-author relationships, academic development research, therapeutic positive autoethnography
Publication Date
11-10-2026
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License.
Recommended APA Citation
Lin, Y., Saito, E., & Pretorius, L. (2026). Co-authoring in autoethnography: Defining and developing co-author relations in academic development research. The Qualitative Report, 31(11), 7179-7193.
ORCID ID
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2915-4164
Included in
Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons, Quantitative, Qualitative, Comparative, and Historical Methodologies Commons
